JUDGMENT :

Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 in the suit have come up in the Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below in granting the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits to the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as under:-

The suit property and an adjacent property originally belonged to one Subbaian Chettiar, the grandfather of the plaintiffs having been purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1951. He died on 22.8.1987. The plaintiffs' father Sarkarairaj predeceased him on 24.4.1984. In the partition between the legal heirs of Subbaian Chettiar vide partition deed dated 10.10.1997, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs and their brother Babu. The said Babu passed away on 23.10.2007 leaving his wife Meena as his legal heir. Subsequently, in a partition deed dated 31.1.2008 among the plaintiffs and the said Meena, she had relinquished her right over the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. One Sangili, husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 7 was a tenant in the suit property. He passed away on 3.8.2006 and after his demise, his legal heirs stopped paying rent and thereby the plaintiffs sent a lawyer notice on 24.3.2009 demanding payment of rent and hand over possession. All the defendants except the fourth defendant received the notice and sent a reply lawyer notice on 1.5.2009 denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and on the contrary, claiming title to the suit property through an unregistered sale deed dated 15.7.1985 alleged to have been executed by Subbaian Chettiar in favour of Sangili and hence, the plaintiffs had to file the suit seeking for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 filed a written statement contending as under:-

Subbaian Chettiar had sold the suit property to Sangili through an unregistered sale deed dated 15.7.1985 and the said Sangili and his wife, the first defendant had settled the same in favour of their daughter the second defendant on 7.2.1997 and thereby the second defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. The second defendant had also filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Theni against the Commissioner of Theni Municipality for assessing the property in the name of Subbaian Chettiar and the same was dismissed on 13.2.2007. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed adverse possession.

4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:-

(1) Whether Subbaian Chettiar had executed sale deed in favour of Sangili, father of defendants 2, 3 and 6 in respect of the suit property and other properties?

(2) Whether the settlement deed dated 7.2.1997 executed by Sangili and the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property is a valid one?

(3) Whether partition was wrongly made in the partition deed dated 10.10.1997?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and recovery of possession as claimed by them?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to past and future mesne profits?

(6) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled?

5. During the trial, the first plaintiff examined himself while marking Exs.A1 to A18. The second defendant was examined as DW1. The first defendant was examined as DW2 and the Assistants of Revenue Department were examined as D.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.B1 to B19 were marked on the side of the defendants. Witness documents were marked as Exs.X1 to X5.

6. On analysis of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court had decreed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendants 1 to 3 and 6/the appellants herein had filed the appeal contending that the Trial Court had not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence to hold that the sale deed dated 15.7.1